Thursday, June 02, 2016

As usual, the cuckservatives and Churchians are blithely falling in line with the globalists and Babelists, as they rush to endorse Big Brother's war on hate speech. It's amazing how they fall for the lies every single time.

The fact is that hate is not intrinsically bad. God Himself hates. There are six things He hates - actually, seven that he detests. There are specific individuals He has hated. There is a time to love, and there is a time to hate.The Christian is instructed to hate as well as to love, indeed, we are told that if one does not hate, one does not fear the Lord.

And that, of course, is the root of the pagan campaign against hate. They wish to arrogate to themselves the decision what you will, and what you will be not, permitted to hate. They want you to love Big Brother, and therefore you will not be permitted to hate him.

But hate is our birthright. Hate is part of what makes us human. Hate is an aspect of our free will. And if hate is outlawed, or worse, eliminated, there will be no moral basis for love.

Hate is a human right. The war on hate speech is a war on our humanity. #IStandWithHateSpeech

Love and hate are two halves of the same passion. To love something is to value it above all other things, even your own life. Hate is what you feel for those who’d harm that which you love. Without hate, love is impotent. Without love, hate is cannibalistic.

I don't think there is a lack of disrespect and hate in the animal kingdom, say between prey and predator, even between predators that compete against each other, like hyenas and lions.

Recognizing "the other" is essential for survival. This survival mechanism manifests itself as hate, quite often. Sure peaceful coexistence is possible, but only when there is plenty.

The globalists are idiots. They force "democracy" on the masses but forget that democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for lunch. The lamb's hate for the wolf is built into the system from the start.

Discrimination is a human right. It is THE human right. The ability to judge people and situations based on intelligence, experience, and our own moral conscience is what separates men from the beasts of the jungle. Discrimination is what makes civilization possible. Without discrimination, the standards of civilization cannot be upheld. The deviant, the derelict, the degenerate, the criminal, and the foreign have free reign to ignore those standards. Without standards civilization falls.The prohibition of discrimination is the great tyranny of our time and requires an anti-American, anti-Constitutional police state to enforce. It obliterates the concept of private property and of freedom of associations and free speech. Of course, the Constitution, private property, and Western Civilization itself have always been the real targets. The prohibition of discrimination is merely a convenient weapon of mass destruction to tear them down.Our society and our nation will never enjoy real progress or prosperity without repealing the prohibition of discrimination like the prohibition alcohol was repealed. They both have done more damage than they are worth.

Feminism is a hate movement. (Just go on Tumblr and start replacing "men" and "women" with "Jews" and "Aryans", respectively. The assertions will suddenly sound very familiar.) Without the right to hate speech, feminism would cease to exist.

Of course, that won't actually happen. Any prohibition of hate speech would be like the Rotherham prohibition against rape: not so much a universal principle as a who/whom matter of choosing sides. Feminist hate speech is copacetic with the State; it's the objections that will be vigorously prosecuted as hate, just as soon as the law is on the books.

you do realize I have a God given right to say the word nigger right? I mean I realize that lots of people reading this comment just gasped in horror that I used the word... but being an adult I refuse to use phrases that we teach 5 year olds like "the n-word". Its a word. Get over it.

"During this podcast i will fulfill my Aryan duty to spread hate for our racial enemies, which especially includes internal enemies, yes the enemies within, the serious White race traitors. Yes i do spread, or promote, hatred. I plant seeds of hate, that hopefully will blossom into orchids of hate. If you don't hate the White genocide agenda, and our internal and external enemies, who carry out the White genocide agenda, then you are a pervert, you are dishonorable, immoral, unmanly and certainly not Aryan, or noble. We can't defeat our enemies and fend of White genocide without hate. Let's face that, if we do not hate our enemies, and their anti White agenda, we will fail."

And that, of course, is the root of the pagan campaign against hate. They wish to arrogate to themselves the decision what you will, and what you will be not, permitted to hate.

It goes further. God hates sin; every sin deserves nothing less that God's full wrath and curse. He hates the unholy. He hated the cities on the plain - hated them - enough to utterly destroy them and every one inside once Lot's family had fled.

The SJW's arrogate to themselves the authority to tell everyone else what to hate. Therefore, they seek to usurp the authority of God. There is nothing new under the sun.

Everyone has the God given right to say "nigger". However, "nigga" is a different story. A lengthy residency in the Black community is required which then confers the right of usage. And when I think about it, the white kids on the other side of town would never be caught dead using the term "nigga". It was always "nigger". On rare occasions, you would hear "moulinyan" or "moulie" but that was from those guinea wop bastards.

As per usual, the target of this campaign is not the stated thing -- being against "hate speech," whatever that is -- but rather the root morality that the godless leftists are out to destroy.

It's parallel to the "gay marriage" push not really being about the "right" people of the same sex to get married, but destroying the institution of marriage, along with the sacrament of marriage, and weakening families to give the state more opportunities to step in.

The usual SJW hocus pocus abetted by the usual useful idiots rich in money and poor in wisdom.

Hate speech is speech that offends someone, unpopular speech. Numerous Supreme Court opinions have pointed out that such unpopular speech is EXACTLY why freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment...

God doesn't actually hate, it's an anthropotheism.God is love, like He is Being ( not A being), like He is existence ( not he exists).God actually hating is an absence of love, in which case he would be "missing" something and not be God.We say that God hates to show that there are things and people that God does not approve of.And yes, it is perfectly fine to Hate something or someone and to express that hate ( providing that expression doesn't injure anyone).

Sure, words are words. "Nigger" and "The N-word" convey exactly the same meaning (the latter being a bit more pretentious) so really people are taking exception to phonetics.

Making them remarkably....something. I can't conjure the proper term...

My current stance: just as with all of our rights, this one comes with responsibilities. In this case something along the lines of not engaging in hate for its own sake or the more common internet twat waffle nonsense.

Honest hate, even if others would find it offensive, can at least be engaged and/or understood.

Why you gotta bring Mr. Nuffin into this conversation? He was just turning his life around!

Poor guy had just left a church service where he donated to the gay puppy orphanage, and was on his way to college to complete his nuclear physics degree, when he was accosted by a racist cop who immediately drew steel. He turned his back and said "Hands up, don't shoot" but the cop fired. But forensic evidence has proved a modern miracle, the Miraculous Slaying of Saint Brown, in which the bullets curved around to hit him in the front.

This isn't about "hate." It's about blasphemy, as defined by the Equals Temple (rev. Jim Jones, presiding, sponsored by the makers of cherry KoolAid and KCN, USP.)

The word "hate" is quite simple. When we see it applied selectively (it's perfectly okay to hate white males, dead or alive) we know we've moved to the realm of sophistry.

It's a cult.The cult is the West's universal religion.It has no god. It has theological tenets.It has its devil (Hitler.)It has its original sin (chattel slavery in the US, ~1619 to 1860.)It's central pillars are "Blank Slate" and "Magic Dirt."It has its Two Minutes Hates.

Any thought contrary to cult dogma is blasphemous. "Hate speech" is nothing but expressing blasphemous thoughts.

Naturally, cultists are stridently, viciously anti-free-speech. In the cult's lexicon, all opposition to its March Toward Perfection is not just illegitimate, it is evil.

As stated elsewhere, the Trump Phenomenon is nothing less than Cult High Priest Exorcists screaming "Begone, Hitler/Racist/Satan out of our midst," and realizing their invocation has no effect.

No wonder they're in Full Freak Out Mode as previously mute congregants scramble to support what in the Cultists' minds is a veritable demon.

you do realize I have a God given right to say the word nigger right? I mean I realize that lots of people reading this comment just gasped in horror that I used the word... but being an adult I refuse to use phrases that we teach 5 year olds like "the n-word". Its a word. Get over it.

Leftists operate at the level of Harry Potter fans. Words are incantations, and some are considered "unforgivable curses," literally (in their minds) words that kill.

There's "hate" as in "personally wishes ill towards and will actively physically harm if given the opportunity", and "hate" as in "condemns and rejects absolutely". The former is the sin of Wrath. The latter is not only perfectly compatible with living a moral Christian life but in fact a necessary (if not by itself sufficient) part of it. But since the opposition is deliberately conflating the two for the sake of a bad-faith argument, the effective rhetorical countermove is to appear to embrace both and run with it.

On a broader level, all freedoms must include both a positive and negative exercise to be free. The right of free speech must include the capacity both to disagree, to be silent, and to refuse to listen. The right of freedom of association must include the capacity to reject associations as well as enact them. The right of peaceful assembly must include the capacity to refuse to participate. And so on.

One of the worst victories of the Gnostic Left was the post-Marxist/Freudian conflation of actor with actions, so as to make the classic touchstone of morality quoted by VoodooJock above, "Hate the sin but not the sinner," a null statement.

Like all emotions, hate is a useful indicator. It's telling you something needs to be done. It's an invitation for introspection and analysis. When someone feels hate, they best course of action is to figure out the who, what, when, where, why and how of it all. Tying this with the rest of ones experiences and personality will provide a course of action.

This is just another example of the long fought war on the mind / emotions. Emotions are extremely powerful, and if understood, they can be honed in such a way that brings out mans natural burning desire to change/better the world around them. The last thing that they want is people understanding their emotions and acting correctly on them.

God doesn't actually hate, it's an anthropotheism. God is love, like He is Being ( not A being), like He is existence ( not he exists). God actually hating is an absence of love, in which case he would be "missing" something and not be God. We say that God hates to show that there are things and people that God does not approve of. And yes, it is perfectly fine to Hate something or someone and to express that hate ( providing that expression doesn't injure anyone).

Yes, of course. Any church which thinks the anthropomorphic biblical language about God is analogical rather than literal teaches that God is a liar. You must choose between the spurious teachings of your cucked church, rooted deviously in Greek philosophy, the tenants of classical theism, and especially the doctrines of divine simplicity and transcendence; and the really true truth as discovered by Vox Day, self-described heretic, circa 2000 AD.

Perhaps. But one thing I've noticed about nearly all you self-professed theology experts is that what you specialize in is explaining how what the Bible observably says is not what the Bible says. And the consequences of listening to you "theologians" is reliably disastrous.

So, I consider all of you to be at least potential wolves in sheep's clothing and ignore you.

Some of the uses of hate in Biblical psssages are relative: the love for God should be such that the love for family is hate by comparison. It is a scale of love.The sense, the feeling, of hate, towards that which is evil should not be suppressed, for evil is the enemy.What we Christians must be careful about is on our actions. God will deal with our motives and thoughts. But we are not to be slaves to our emotions or fears. After all, real courage is to act while overcoming fear.And yet, whatever we do, it is to be done to the glory of God while not becoming a stumbling block.Being an atheist would be much easier.

"My current stance: just as with all of our rights, this one comes with responsibilities."

sure. and you can probably count on one hand the time you've seen me use the word nigger on this blog. But the point is it is a word. And its long past time for people to grow the hell up and shut this idiotic liberal narrative equating speech with action down.

Malachi 1 “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the L-rd. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated

Zechariah 8:17 do not plot evil against each other, and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this,” declares the L-rd.

Now "hate" (sanei) in the original Hebrew means ... wait for it ... "hate." It's a simple word. It's always a little amusing to see the self-proclaimed theologians come out of the woodwork to do violence to the p'shat, (plain meaning) of a Biblical text simply because they find the hard truth of His Word to be so distasteful and disruptive of their churchian sensibilities.

@42 Nobody knows what you're talking about, because no orthodox church has ever believed that God doesn't really hate people and things that the Bible says he hates. So in addition to snarkasm and doubling down, you're projecting theological novelty/heresy onto Vox's position when in fact yours is the novel/heretical one.

God is love. Hate (NB: *not* indifference, which He explicitly called out in His Book thingie, but whatev) is the opposite of love. God can't be more than one thing, I mean, he's God and also existence but mainly love, amirite? So, really, if you think about it, Satan doesn't really exist. How can he? God is existence! He's really just, like, not-God and not really there and probably not worth thinking about too much, if at all.

As opposed to the consequences of listening to Luther, who rather than trying to explain what the Bible's metaphors and imagery meant ended up simply discarding the parts of it he didn't want?

I have never had any communications with Luther. But I have plenty of experience with theologians of one sort or another telling me that God saying He doesn't know means God knows, and that God saying He hates means God doesn't hate.

And somehow, their conclusions always seem to lead to whatever meets the approval of the world at the moment. Purely a coincidence, no doubt.

Oh, there's no doubt about it. You are, in fact, a terrible theologian. From your POV, I'm a terrible theologian. So it goes...

In any case, scripture speaks of love and hate in two different ways. One way is simply as a choice for and a choice against. The other is emotional attraction and repulsion. Humans have a hard time separating the two -- we typically choose those things for which we have an emotional attraction and typically reject those things for which we have an emotional repulsion. Yet, it isn't always the case that emotion drives choices; sometimes our choices drive our emotions. We are complex creatures.

Sometimes we are told to hate (reject) those whom we have positive emotions, e.g. "Unless you hate mother and father, you cannot be my disciple." This is a clear example of separating emotion from choice. Jesus is not saying we are to emotionally hate our parents; He is saying that, if it comes to it, we are to choose Him over them.

There is no doubt that God chooses some things and rejects other things. "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." The question is whether or not there is an emotional component to that choice when it comes to God. There is ample Biblical warrant for saying that God's choices are real, but that His expressions of emotion are anthropomorphisms.

@13 There was a film in the 90s (I don`t recall the title, but Larry Fishbourne starred in it). At the beginning a fed seeking undercover agents for a fed op was asking a string of black cops if they knew what the difference was between a black man and a nigger. At last when asked Larry didn`t say a word, he just stared for awhile. Then he said, ``A black man wouldn`t even answer the question.``

They hate hate?But the condemned speech is rarely hateful in any way.What has been going on is the destruction of the well defined truth. Masculinity or Femininity is replaced with androgyny.Love and hate with indifference.Note the weak support for the refugees, they aren't even loved, just something more like pets.There are things whose proper response is hate. All lies. Theft and murder.Anger, however, is still a cardinal sin.Few have any self-control today, so encouraging ignition of strong emotions which can end in anger and lust (which are thought-sins, See Matthew 5) is generally not a good idea.

numbnuts retard over here was trying to assert that God doesn't "hate" anything, even though the Bible states clearly and explicitly on multiple occassions that He DOES hate *and* that He acts on that hate by destroying those things which offend him.

also, be VERY careful about telling believers that they "can't hate" because they aren't God.

If you wear a rainbow feather boa when you do it people won't call the cops to admit they lost a fight to you.

Haters should be a protected class. I was born that way!

There was a didndu whose (((Saul))) claimed that having the "warrior gene" (more properly named the belligerent A hole gene) means he should have a reduced sentence instead of being taken out of the gene pool.

Before bob tears you a new one... how in the world does this disqualify what bob said about God actually doing the things He said He does? How does it disqualify the claim that "God doesn't actually hate, it's an anthropotheism." is completely spurious?

I have long believed that the opposite of love is not hate, but rather apathy. If this is the case, then God's hate is not antithetical to His character. Moreover, it would be true to say that God is never apathetic, and that this would be the true inversion of His declared character and nature.

I am addressing what was written in sarcasm -- that was "simply God withholding himself"

God has perfect knowledge, we do not. His authority and power in His actions are inherent in Himself. We do not have such. That God destroyed almost all humans is instructive of God's power and long suffering in mankind's evil. It does not necessarily instruct us that we can act in the same way.

Sure, words are words. "Nigger" and "The N-word" convey exactly the same meaning (the latter being a bit more pretentious) so really people are taking exception to phonetics.

Making them remarkably....something. I can't conjure the proper term...

My current stance: just as with all of our rights, this one comes with responsibilities. In this case something along the lines of not engaging in hate for its own sake or the more common internet twat waffle nonsense.

Honest hate, even if others would find it offensive, can at least be engaged and/or understood.The reason the phrase ''the N-word'' has become so common is the fact many media companies have literally banned the word ''nigger''.Two examples; when Blazing Saddles pops up on cable (other than HBO) that word often is muted out (it's become the eighth of Carlin's dirty words).Radio generally doesn't allow it either, either muting it in recordings or firing people who say it.I've seen many websites either wordfilter or delete and ban commenters who try to post it (not Google... Yet).It's why I prefer 'dindu', less hassle all around.

Objection 2. Further, anger, joy and the like are passions of the composite. But these are attributed to God in Scripture: "The Lord was exceeding angry with His people" (Psalm 105:40). Therefore God is composed of matter and form.

(...)

On the contrary, Whatever is composed of matter and form is a body; for dimensive quantity is the first property of matter. But God is not a body as proved in the preceding Article; therefore He is not composed of matter and form.

(...)

Reply to Objection 2. Anger and the like are attributed to God on account of a similitude of effect. Thus, because to punish is properly the act of an angry man, God's punishment is metaphorically spoken of as His anger.

Well, I really hate saying Vox is "right" on the most anything, but there's at least a half truth he's positing. For the Protestants in the room, I got nothing for you save putting Ps 5:7 ([God] hatest all that work iniquity) in juxtaposition with Ez 33:11 (God desires not the death of a sinner, but rather that he turn from his way and live). For the Catholics, ita ad Thomae

Sed Contra of I.20.2:

"On the contrary, It is said (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which Thou hast made." [The bible citation is, sadly, not acceptable to Protestants as Luther's infallible removal still stands. Or they defend it in relation to "Hebrew" only. Whatevs.]

(From "Reply to Objection 4" of I.20.2):

"Nothing prevents one and the same thing being loved under one aspect, while it is hated under another. God loves sinners in so far as they are existing natures; for they have existence and have it from Him. In so far as they are sinners, they have not existence at all, but fall short of it; and this in them is not from God. Hence under this aspect, they are hated by Him."

This both affirms that God hates (as Vox so dearly wishes to defend for his right to hate, though his emphasis seems to lessen Jesus' command in Mt 5:44 and John's directive 1 John 2:9-11 - not deny, per se, but lessen), but only in light of his love. In fact, his hate is only brought about to the extent that the sinner has denied love and, in a contradictory paradox, actually hated themselves - Man is man to the extent that he images God (Gen 1:26-27) and further, like all creation, he owes his very existence to God (even his freedom is dependent upon God - unless you wish to affirm freedom as part of some super-god reality, but then I'd be tempted to think you're just Mormon or a Christian-pagan). If man denies God he is denying himself, ultimately destroying himself like a cancer - and God hates that.

praetorian wrote:We are discussing a religion that literally thinks God literally became man, and you are literally warning us about anthropomorphising Him?

Yes, I am.

First, we don't know what God becoming man really entails. Paul speaks of the "kenosis" (emptying) where Jesus took on human form in Phil 2:7.

Second, God making Himself in our image is quite different from us making God in our image. One is the Incarnation. The other is idolatry.

Third, one has to deal with texts such as Isa 55:8 ('"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD.'); Mal 3:6 ("For I am the LORD, I change not;"); Num 23:19 ("God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"); James 1:17 ("with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning"), and so on.

Care to explain an anthropological changeable God in light of these texts?

Tell me that God doesn't hate. Instead, God's hate is the absence of love. I can roll with that to a degree - I like classical theism. I like Aquinas. I recognize where this general line of thought comes from, where there is no 'evil' per se, just the absence of good.

But that's the problem with saying 'God doesn't hate. God is only love. Hate is an anthropomorphism of God'. If you're treating hate the way evil is treated, the hate doesn't exist - period. Evil doesn't have some kind of existence, not in God, not in concentration camps. There's just an absence of good. Tell me that God does not hate, God merely 'lacks love', and it's not clear whether full blown nazis at concentration camps hate either. They just 'lack love', and now the question is whether their love priorities are in order.

For the record, the Aquinas-touting people I know tend not to be very big on 'the world'. But then these also tend to be philosophers, not theologians. Regarding self-described modern theologians, I'm forced to admit I can't think of any offhand worth a damn. Philosophers? I can name some great modern ones. But 'theologian' seems like a whole other deal, across every Christian sect. I could be missing some, but every one I've ever run into seems like either a shittier version of Stuart Smalley or an obvious con artist trying to convince anyone who will listen that sodomy is never mentioned in the bible, it's all a big misunderstanding and God would bestow her blessing on gay marriage.

"I have long believed that the opposite of love is not hate, but rather apathy. If this is the case, then God's hate is not antithetical to His character. "

Perhaps if you wouldn't be so arrogant as to convince yourself that you can apply something like the human concept of "character" to God... and then describe that character as if your tiny human mind can understand Him.... this wouldn't be such a huge problem for you.

Yes, hate is a human right. What's more, I don't trust any of the people who are obsessed with stomping out 'hate' to properly define what 'hate' even is. You know what they consider to be hate? Any kind of criticism whatsoever. Also, any kind of confidence in something they detest. Are you proud of your white ancestry? You're guilty of hate.

But do you hate white privilege? Hell, do you hate whites? Then that's not hate. That's love and concern. Do you want to get people fired, torment them into silence or worse for disagreeing? You're a champion of tolerance.

Give me a world with hate and hate speech over the people who would protect everyone from hate as they see it.

And beyond that, I think the most gutless thing I saw French whine about was how Trump and company were saying and doing things that liberals were going to be writing papers and complaining about for generations. If that man considers the mere fact that 'SJWs will strenuously object and attack for ages' as a reason not to engage in an action, then to hell with him - he's not fit for leadership. And if he objects that he's a good father, that he's a good role model for nice people, a movie quote comes to mind.

"Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids."

@NatePerhaps if you wouldn't be so arrogant as to convince yourself that you can apply something like the human concept of "character" to God...

To be fair, God described Himself. There's no need to try and apply a human concept of character, to realize that there are things that are antithetical to God and how He described Himself - such as lying and oathbreaking.

You know I ended up affirming that "God hates" right? I just used Thomas to say that while it is true that God loves all, including the sinner (the Wisdom text as proof - which I'm guessing you don't accept, but like I said, whatevs, not here to argue protestant methodology) he can also hate the sinner (and Thomas only cites one text, but he's not one for using proof quote bombs over theological reasoning). - Citation: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm#article2.

And unless you ask me a proper question which I need to respond to, peace out. Mostly for the sake of me not acting out a sin of wrath. Should never have come here in the first place. #PharisaicalTomas

How can you read through the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Malachi, etc and deny God's intensity of emotion? I know of no other writing so thoroughly saturated with passionate love and hatred as the old testament prophets, where God expresses his utter loathing of evil and his pure joy in redeeming his own people.

If a person was born and lived his life without any emotion, only making intellectual choices, would you consider this better than an ordinary person, or a deficit? Why then do you look at God as someone with no emotion and consider Him higher than man? Isn't a rock less significant because it has no feeling? Doesn't it make more sense to say that God has more intense emotions than man, not that he is deadened to all emotion? If man is emotional, passionate, and personal, wouldn't God be more than this, not less?

There is something dark in your thinking, in removing emotion from the divine. Vox is right that you have to deny scripture directly in order to uphold your position. Personally, I hate that you have divorced God from his emotions because it is an insult to his intensity and power, to his passion on the cross, to the passion he has poured out for his people, and to the connection we have with him when we see pure evil and rightly hate it.

Yeah, man, but those are just, like, words, man. God is, like, too big for us to understand, man, so, like God is love which we understand and but not hate which we understand, man. We gotta be careful that we don't, like, think that God made us in his image or something, man. Group hug and see you all at the trans-rights vigil this evening.

This is a fun thread, by the way. I can see how tedious religious spats would be a bad thing to have on a regular basis but. reading the back-and-forth, I'm enjoying myself immensely.

Crude wrote:Tell me that God does not hate, God merely 'lacks love', and it's not clear whether full blown nazis at concentration camps hate either. They just 'lack love', and now the question is whether their love priorities are in order.

This is somewhat how I think of it. Evil people, such as those consumed by hatred, are not some grandiose demons. (Neither are demons really grandiose, by the way, but that's a different matter.) When the human soul dies spiritually, the animal keeps living, and so the spiritually dead live their lives like animals, following the course of instinct, emotion, and the path of least resistance.

The Natsoc moral philosophy, insofar as they have one and as far as I can understand it, is that the rules of morality derive from the national good, "nation" being of course defined in the thick sense of common race, culture, religion and so on. Your moral duty regarding love is to love your nation with all your heart, soul, strength, etc. and consequently to hate whatever threatens it. Loving your nation, then, more than your common humanity, you faithfully follow your orders and kill whoever they tell you to kill, because if those people really are a threat to your nation, killing them really is justified. No matter how much your stomach turns at what you're doing, it's fine, because the sacrifice you're asked to bear for the sake of your children.

There's no hatred there. The only thing wrong with it is that you were lied to about what the proper object of all your love is. But that's all that needs to be wrong to get some decently bad results.

@93. JaimeInTexas Because God's judgements and actions do not necessarily gives us warrant to do the same.

That is utterly tangential to the point bob was making.

@94. TomasYou know I ended up affirming that "God hates" right? I just used Thomas to say that while it is true that God loves all, including the sinner (the Wisdom text as proof - which I'm guessing you don't accept, but like I said, whatevs, not here to argue protestant methodology) he can also hate the sinner (and Thomas only cites one text, but he's not one for using proof quote bombs over theological reasoning). - Citation: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm#article2.

The explanation you quoted was convoluted, longwinded and, as you noted, even lessened aspects of the rest of the Bible. Probably not a correct explanation.

Seriously, there was no need for Thomas for claim that somehow existance must tie into it somehow. It's possible for humans to love and hate something at the same time. Is God then somehow incapable of the same?

And unless you ask me a proper question which I need to respond to, peace out. Mostly for the sake of me not acting out a sin of wrath. Should never have come here in the first place. #PharisaicalTomas

Which, in mentioning it, hatred vs wrath is a concept that bears some discussing. What is the difference? At first blush, it would be that hatred is anger which is just, and wrath is unjust.

Is it then a sin of wrath if you are getting angry over a cause you believe is just?

"Care to explain an anthropological changeable God in light of these texts?"

Being immovable in purpose and nature is not the same as being emotionally static. What could be more obvious than that? Your whole position on this is a non sequitur.

How do explain Hosea 11?

“'How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel?How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboyim?My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused.I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I devastate Ephraim again.For I am God, and not a man— the Holy One among you. I will not come against their cities.They will follow the Lord; he will roar like a lion.When he roars, his children will come trembling from the west.They will come from Egypt, trembling like sparrows, from Assyria, fluttering like doves.I will settle them in their homes,' declares the Lord."

And I suppose you think the most significant part of Jonah is determining whether he was swallowed by a whale or a fish. What on earth do you think that book was about? How do you explain God's response to Nineveh, and his emotional understanding and empathy as he reasons with Jonah in the last chapter? How do explain the last two verses of Jonah? Your unfeeling God doesn't appear in that book.

I saw this as a pastor of 10 years with both an MDiv and a MATS. There are anthropomorphisms in Scripture. God's hate is not one of them. (Technically, since we're talking about emotion, the correct term would be "anthropopathism"-attributing human passions to the inhuman).

If we make God's hate merely an anthropopathism, then we have to make His love an anthropopathism as well. Some do, along with His anger, jealousy, kindness, etc. But then you end up wondering what is left of God. They try to say that God's emotions are merely figures of speech and shouldn't be taken literally. That we need to read them in such a way as to learn some otherwise inexpressible truth about God.

If He doesn't really love or really hate, then does He have any emotions?

Yes, He does. One does not destroy cities with fire and brimstone without emotion. One does not flood the world in an emotionless state. One does not send the Son to die on the cross without love. God is not a machine, computer, or robot reacting to inputs according to a predetermined matrix of outputs.

His love is like the love we have for one another except His is perfect while ours has been marred. For perfection is part of His unchangeable character, while our character has been defiled by sin.

His is a perfect love. Likewise, His hate is a perfect hate. To say that these emotions of God are not "really" what He means lessens Him and takes away from His power (He inspired the very words of Scripture yet used words that give the opposite understanding of His intention). It does not make Him more understandable to say His hate is expressed by merely the closest word in Hebrew or English and is actually something completely different. It makes Him alien to us.

Vox picks a side and goes with it. I don't see the thought, especially on Scriptural issues, to search out all the aspects. Hence the conclusion that God really does not know, rather than considering all the Scriptures on the topic.

Hate is definitely appropriate in some situations, but it is not always appropriate either, even when it may seem so according to human reasoning.

God commended the Bereans for a reason. He also proclaimed that we should reason together. Much too little of that in almost any circle today.

Perfectly said. God is not alien to us, and he does not hide in shrouds of secrecy and misdirection from those searching for him. If our emotions had no connection to the divine, he would have told us as much.

The folks arguing for anthropopathism have totally detached themselves from common sense in reading the scripture. On this topic, they sound to me more like Gnostics than Christians, willing to condemn all that is human in order to elevate God beyond our reach.

When we speak of "anthropomorphism", we generally are referring to attributing complicated emotional states to something incapable of experiencing them. The car did not really want to go very fast, it was just created to throttle up quickly with what felt like a gentle tap on the pedal.

With God, it works the other way around. We are trying to jam emotions wildly beyond our ken into tiny human words.

Even I, a mere mortal, can love and hate a single thing or person in complicated ways; how much moreso God.

I imagine it is true (but can not prove it and do not claim it; one must be careful to so qualify one's words on these matters) that God probably does not hate with the simple blind rage that sometimes we humans degenerate into, precisely because that is a very simplistic emotion. But what hate is still there remains something far greater than our own capacity to hold. Even if it diminished or moderated by other things, I for one would not care to stand in front of it, nor would I particularly care to try to argue and minimize it. Had He wanted to put lots of caveats on His statements about His own emotional state, I trust He would have. That He didn't suggests to me I probably shouldn't either, and it would probably be a great disservice to try to minimize it for those who may yet be on the receiving end of God's hate.

praetorian wrote:Did Jesus suffer on the cross?According to the flesh, yes. But, in light of the kenosis, and in light of God being Spirit, and in light of the passages in @79, can you explain how you think this helps your case?

wrf3 wrote:Humans have a hard time separating the two -- we typically choose those things for which we have an emotional attraction and typically reject those things for which we have an emotional repulsion. Yet, it isn't always the case that emotion drives choices; sometimes our choices drive our emotions. We are complex creatures.

Hate as a positive emotion is never discussed today. But it can add zest and purpose to your life. All this talk about finding "peace" and bragging you don't hate anyone ignores the reality that the human experience is enhanced by conflict and adversaries. As a very wise man once told me: if you don't have enemies, get some!

Man is the image of God, not the other way around. Our love is the material form of God's perfect love, just as our hate is the material form of God's perfect hate. And we are furthermore corrupted by the Fall.

Farnswords wrote:Being immovable in purpose and nature is not the same as being emotionally static. What could be more obvious than that? Your whole position on this is a non sequitur.

First, you've substituted "immovable" for "unchangeable", which you don't have a warrant to do. "I do not change". "No shadow of turning."

Second, if you're going to attribute emotions to God, then you have to attribute unchanging emotions toward people. If He hates a particular person now, then He has to hate them for all time. If He loves a particular person now, then He has to love them for all time.

Is this what you want to say?How do explain Hosea 11?The same way I explain Psalm 61:4: "Let me ... find refuge under the shelter of your wings."

And I suppose you think the most significant part of Jonah is determining whether he was swallowed by a whale or a fish. What on earth do you think that book was about? How do you explain God's response to Nineveh, and his emotional understanding and empathy as he reasons with Jonah in the last chapter? How do explain the last two verses of Jonah? Your unfeeling God doesn't appear in that book.

How do you explain Jonah in light of Num 23:19: "God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"

To someone who denies that Jesus was both God and man? Why would I bother?

Look, your self-contradictory position has been destroyed here, scripturally, logically, philosophically and rhetorically. If you are too stupid to see that, or to even pause and reflect on the matter, I can't help you.

Reply 4 from Aquinas on whether God Loves all Things in replay to Objection 4

"Reply to Objection 4. Nothing prevents one and the same thing being loved under one aspect, while it is hated under another. God loves sinners in so far as they are existing natures; for they have existence and have it from Him. In so far as they are sinners, they have not existence at all, but fall short of it; and this in them is not from God.......... Hence under this aspect, they are hated by Him."

Feel the Hate rising within you. You do not know the POWER of the Dark Side. What is this enlightenment you seek? It is Lucifer shining light in your eyes to blind you while his minions blow smoke up your ass.Is this what you want for you and your family? The SHINING? Oh you fools. The Dark Enlightenment teaches you to again Hate the Evil and the Weak. Loving everyone is the Love of Whores, and Cheap Whores at that.Don't be a whore. Get your daughters off that cheap metal pole. You need HEAVY METAL. Learn the Philosophy of Steel. Forged with Blood and Iron. Living on Blood and Soil. Buy Guns and Butter. Do you want to be worthless and weak your whole life? Be a Man!Join the Mobile Infantry, Get Citizenship. You don't vote for Kings. Kings Rule by Divine Right. There ain't no Atheists in Foxholes. They're all at the gay bars with the gay boys worshipping Cornholio. Get that TP out of your bunghole. Do you apes want to live forever? Tonight we will dine in Valhalla!

On this topic, they sound to me more like Gnostics than Christians, willing to condemn all that is human in order to elevate God beyond our reach.

Funny you should mention that. John Wright and I were discussing a few weeks ago how gnosticism is the root of all heresies. While I had not thought of it before, I couldn't think of a single counter example.

they apply one standard to the attributes they consider to conform to their picture of Floofy God and turn around and apply an entirely different standard to the 'mean' attributes like Anger, Hate, Jealousy and Judgment.

The New Testament equates hate of your brother without cause is the same as murder. Too many think that God is just a big indulgent grandfather that sits in the sky and laughs at our foibles. They have absorbed a lie.

"First, you've substituted "immovable" for "unchangeable", which you don't have a warrant to do. "I do not change". "No shadow of turning."

Second, if you're going to attribute emotions to God, then you have to attribute unchanging emotions toward people. If He hates a particular person now, then He has to hate them for all time. If He loves a particular person now, then He has to love them for all time."

I admit I don't even understand how you came to that second point. I have argued that God is emotionally dynamic, exactly as he is depicted in the scripture. A completely static God is your view, not mine. It didn't elude me that you had nothing to say about Jonah.

I don't find your position the least bit persuasive. If you are right, not only is the Bible completely misleading, but it is also much, much less interesting. If God's passion for justice and his intensity of hatred for evil and hypocrisy are illusory, then my own feelings about those things are detrimental and useless, having no connection to God. All I can say is that I didn't read that Bible, I didn't fall in love with that God, and I don't recognize that Christ.

@140 Think of gnosticism as the attitude that you know better than the revealed truth.

That is exactly the definition I came to after a brief refresher on who the Gnostics were. Their name itself (Greek for "Having Knowledge" points that way) gets them there. Their actions and doctrine, as explained by Iraneus, solidified the definition.

Nate, I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I am not in the "God does not hate" camp. My comment addressed those who were arguing that God cannot hate because He is love, and since, as they seemed to be saying, "hate" is the opposite of "love", God cannot do it.

The point of my comment was to therefore show that, because "hate" is not truly the opposite of "love", God is eminently capable of both -- and that, instead, I believe what we can confidently say is that God is not apathetic. As in, while there is ample evidence that God loves and hates, there is no evidence in Scripture that God says "meh" about anything.

Wow, that kind of took off there, LOL.Scripture saying that God hates is putting across an understanding to whom scripture was written for and to ( not always the same thing by the way). As humans we understand what it means when it states that God hates Esau and many other passages that state that He hates.We also say HE or that God changed His mind but we know that God is not "HE" nor that God changes His mind. These things were written to give us a better understanding of God in human terms.It is perfectly fine to believe that God hates, IF you understand what that truly means.We use "hate" because anyone reading understand what it means and it gets the message across.

It is not unbiblical to say that God Hates NOR is it unbiblical to state that God is love.

I guess we need to grasp that while humans hate because we don't like something or other emotional/intellectual reasons. God hates what is contrary to His nature ( which is pure and holy and righteous).

When we say God is angry, no one views God as being "red faced and screaming" like a human, no of course not BUT we understand what it means, why God is what we term to be "angry".

Farnswords wrote:I admit I don't even understand how you came to that second point.That's what "unchanging" means. If He has the emotion of hate for someone, then that hate is eternal. If He has the emotion of love for someone, then that love is eternal.I have argued that God is emotionally dynamic, exactly as he is depicted in the scripture.I understand what you're arguing. You're basing it on the fallacy of selective citing.

Tell me, does God really have wings, as Psalm 61:4 says?

A completely static God is your view, not mine. It didn't elude me that you had nothing to say about Jonah.Except I did say something. You ignored it.If you are right, not only is the Bible completely misleading,Does God have wings? Yes, or no? It's not a hard question to answer. If you answer "no", then the Bible is, at the very least, partially misleading. And partially misleading is a bit like partially pregnant.

So either a Spirit has wings, or the Bible is misleading. Pick your poison.

I agree that Vox's letterism is technically wrong and that when God is said to "hate" in the Bible it is an instance of the use of analogical language, but for practical purposes, I have no beef with what he's trying to say.

“The matter is quite simple. The bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”

Engaging is truly hateful and hate-inspired invective aimed at a people or person is a pretty easy thing to do. It doesn't take much thought, self control or much else. It's most often just a spew of words.

Who cares about it? It might be a form of evil. It might now.

It's the taking action out of hate that you have to watch for. When this happens, it's almost always motivated by plain evil.

Vox Day might be a terrible theologian, but reading this thread that seems a high compliment. If nothing else, he helped bring Chuck Tingle to into prominence. Chuck Tingle is clearly the greatest philosopher of our age and will guide all of us hard buckaroos into a new age of hope and enlightenment because Love is Real!

We also say HE or that God changed His mind but we know that God is not "HE" nor that God changes His mind. These things were written to give us a better understanding of God in human terms.

We "know" no such thing. God is definitely a HE. He has told us so on numerous occasions. Not male in a biological fashion, as God has no biology, but masculine in a spiritual fashion. Christ very explicitly and often told us to address God as Father, and not for cultural or relative reasons, but because He IS our Father.And while God does not change, we do, and so our relation to Him changes, just as Jerusalem may be west at some times and east at others. It's not because Jerusalem has been moved.

@wrf, you apparently think God is incapable of both hating and loving a person at the same time. Since it is well within my wheelhouse to do so, I cannot imagine that He is so limited.

So, the analogical party consensus is that God did not make us in his own image, did not instill in us limited and material emotions that we might better understand Him and his own infinite and spiritual emotions?

Context is king, my friend. I would bet that >90% of laymen would read through the Psalms and come to the conclusion that God has real passions and that wings are metaphorical. That is because most people use common sense when they read and take imagery as it presents itself. I doubt that God reserved his true identity only for the esoteric theologians that reject the obvious interpretation.

Anyways, I am agnostic about whether God literally has wings. I would not be surprised at all if he did.

That's an excellent quotation, very true in many ways. I don't think it means theology is useless, though, just that it is susceptible to becoming a substitution for holy living. Regardless of where wrf3 and I stand on God's emotional existence, we are both ultimately to be judged on how we have lived in his sight.

God does not change because He does not grow old, does not mature, does not learn new things that rewuire Him to vhange His mind.In the passages quoted is where I agree that what is being described is God's challenging us to wrestle, to earnestly plea. A rhetorical device.

Farnswords wrote:Context is king, my friend.Indeed it is. And when it comes to what God is like, context is all Scripture -- not just parts. Hence my claim that you are engaging in selective citing.I would bet that >90% of laymen would read through the Psalms and come to the conclusion that God has real passions and that wings are metaphorical. That is because most people use common sense when they read and take imagery as it presents itself.First, what makes you think that our "common sense" applies to God? It clearly does not apply to Nature. General Relativity is slightly mind-blowing; Quantum Mechanics is incomprehensible. So if our common sense fails us as we try to understand what God has made, it isn't unreasonable to think that our common sense will fail us if we try to apply it to God.

Second, it is human nature to anthropomorphize. We have to do it in order to communicate with other people. You'll note that we do it with animals. We also do it with God. So we, rightly or wrongly, insert ourselves into the context.

But then we run afoul of passages of Scripture that say that this is the wrong approach.I doubt that God reserved his true identity only for the esoteric theologians that reject the obvious interpretation.It has nothing to do with being an 'esoteric theologian'. All it takes is someone who is willing to go where Scripture leads. If that upsets the apple cart, then so be it. Reality has never cared about our opinions about it.Anyways, I am agnostic about whether God literally has wings. I would not be surprised at all if he did.Then at the very least you should be agnostic about whether God is "emotionally dynamic".

Of course there's Hate!.....There's obviously "Good" and "Evil"!....And then there's the thing called a "Choice"!.....Why would a human even WANT to choose hate/evil?....Many do!...Personally!...I think the other choice of "Good" is obviously better but then again there's a lot of sick twisted minds out there!....

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.